ColbyCosh.com

The comment was, as you say, foul; I would say vulgar. That is plenty of reason for a degree of social opprobrium. Somewhere along the line, people seem to have confused impoliteness and indecency with actual crime and rule-breaking. I'm not clear, in a world with jokes about going to a fight and a hockey match breaking out, on how the NHL thinks this is an appropriate way to defend its image as a bunch of family-friendly chaps who like to go out, slap a puck around for sixty minutes, and then hug and sing Kumbaya.

While I do concede a slight admiration for the precise balance he managed between piquancy and the contents one might look for on a censor's checklist, my reaction isn't 95% admiration, or anywhere close to that. On the whole, though, the comment is less disgusting than the response to it.

I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult.

I'm sure there are a number of men, young and old (not me, of course!), for whom "sloppy seconds" with Elisha Cuthbert is more appealing than many would care to admit. That being said, are we really sure that everyone interpreted it as an insult? Meaning, what is the reaction of women to the putative slander?

And, has the homo-erotic angle been properly interrogated? I'm just asking.

Out of curiosity, if instead of Sean Avery the person who called a press conference (off-duty of course) and then proceeded to trash a celebrity ex-girfriend was Arturo Elias, the President of General Motors Canada, does anybody think that the punishment would be any less?

(After all, he's just a private citizen expressing his view: sure its a private citizen who can get people to show up somewhere by saying he's holding a press conference)

So, this is really a function of location? What if he'd said it at a bar to a sports reporter? On his own time? Good point.

Are you referring to the line beyond which a business is allowed to punish someone for personal remarks that have no bearing on his job?
I think you misunderstand Avery's job, Colby. Avery is not paid to be a "hockey player" - he is paid to be an entertainer who will bring paying customers into the arena; his method is playing hockey (and his employers vainly hope, playing it well), but that's not his job. At some point Brett Hull's or Jeremy Roenick's 'more or less candid comments' and free spirit shtick attracts fans; taking it to the place Avery did does not - at least in the view of the owners of the business that employs him. Perhaps if Avery was playing like Sydney Crosby it would be overlooked - but I doubt it; I don't think there is enough entertainment value to overcome the distaste.

It's not just the vulgarity of the expression - as you note, it was calibrated to not be quite obscene - but his mistaken idea that it was in any way appropriate to publicly mention it at all, let alone call a press conference about it. If he thought it would get under Phaneuf's skin, fine: Avery can tell him in person on the ice, and go as far as he likes with embellishments and insults; the rest of us don't care and don't need to know. If Avery had said that "it seems common for guys in the league to fall in love with my ex-girlfriends" he would have stayed far inside whatever line he has crossed here (and probably would have escaped censure) - but it would still be a stupid, irrelevant remark, unrelated to hockey, and still paints him as an obtuse jerk, not that that in itself justifies a suspension.

I don't know what the Dallas Stars are worth - maybe $100 - $200 Million? What should he expect when he screws around (deliberately, with much evident fore-thought) with someone else's multi-million dollar asset? Hollywood used to punish (or more commonly, hide) personal conduct that was thought to devalue the franchise - this is the same thing, although it is not possible to "cover up" a press conference, so Avery gets the punishment alternative. To be honest, it looks good on him, and on the jackass who signed him to a contract

a) You can argue that the rest of us don't need to hear Avery's comments, but you need someone other than the sports media which fell over themselves reporting those comments to make that argument. They do not appear to share the premise that what he said was irrelevant or uninteresting, and the idea that it wouldn't have built up extra interest in the Dallas-Calgary game is just plain crazy.

b) Hollywood used to hide personal misconduct among its stars by suborning and threatening journalists. Ah, the good old days!

c) Daryl Katz just got finished paying C$200M, with the Canadian dollar nearly at parity, for the Oilers (and there's some question whether he even got fee-simple title to the franchise in return: there's some subtlety about "hockey assets" that no one's succeeded in explaining to me). The Stars, which are a model franchise in a fairly mature American market, should be worth at least that.

Also:

It was the NHL that suspended Avery, not Dallas(no matter what they said they would do).

What if the organization had acted indignant? "We don't condone Sean's remarks, but they were made in jest. We don't believe any action should be taken against our player". With the NHL stepping in, now who's messing with a 100-200 million dollar business?

The longer this goes on, I wish he would have went farther: "...I don't know what that's about, but enjoy the game tonight, and if you're talking to #3 after the game, ask him how I taste."

To Alex B's remarks:

Exactly. Homoerotic subtext, or the actual point of the remark?

Avery's comment might not be appropriate fare for the millions of children and youths who idolize these guys - that's about the only argument that makes sense to me.

The suggestion that a two-week-long media blitz is somehow harmful to the league or to the Stars is just silly.

No PR is bad PR. When a story like this crosses over from the hockey milieu into the mainstream media, brings the NHL to the attention of those of us in angloamerica who just don't care about hockey (that's the majority, especially in the states), that can only be a good thing for the league.

This is a league which competes with things like bowling and billiards for airtime in the states. More non-fans were reading or watching news about the NHL over this comment of Avery's than probably tune in for the playoffs.

You can't buy exposure like that.

No PR is bad PR.
Yes, I'm sure that's what M Dion's videographer is trying to tell him right about now.

[The sports media did] not appear to share the premise that what he said was irrelevant or uninteresting...
...and their opinion of how to maintain value of a franchise becomes relevant when they pony up the money to buy one (and by the way, what on Earth could make you think that the league -collectively, the owners & players- and the media would have a common interest in this issue?). We are not talking about whether Avery provided good copy: we are talking about whether his employer had the right to discipline him for providing it.

Hollywood used to... Ah, the good old days!
I'm not saying that's right - I'm saying that the motivation is the same: we have a business whose only asset is the willingness of people to pay attention to it, and the owners have to do what they think is required to maintain that willingness. The players, since their paycheques are ultimately funded by that same public attention, should be doing the same.

What if the organization had acted indignant?
Then they would have had the same level of credibility as Bettman usually has: none. If you don't think an action deserves punishment, then you think the action was acceptable - it seems that is not the message the league wants to send to the public or to the other players.

"If you don't think an action deserves punishment, then you think the action was acceptable."

Do you really want to stand behind this remarkable epistemological razor or do you want to reconsider for a minute?

[i]No PR is bad PR[/i]
Yes, I'm sure that's what M Dion's videographer is trying to tell him right about now.

It's bad PR when you're already in the news every day with trying to convince your countrymen that your too-small coalition is what they want to run the country, and you can't even deliver a short video on time or in focus.

When you're a major sports league that gets less airplay than college badminton, anything that brings your brand to the public spotlight is a good thing.

When you're a major sports league that gets less airplay than college badminton, anything that brings your brand to the public spotlight is a good thing.

Righto: if the Duke lacrosse accusations had been true and the players sent to jail, it still would've been great for the sport.

Colby, probably "sanction" is more what I was thinking than "punishment" - but in the context of discipline, there is not much (aside from bafflegab) that separates "that was terrible but doesn't merit response" and "that was okay."

No, nothing separates them except the great liberal chasm in which we all live, whereby we agree to mind our own damn business about most things.

And yet here you are, writing in a national newspaper about relations between two contractually bound parties.

You have done a fine job, sir, of pointing out the laughable "logic" of many of the 3rd-, 4th-, and non-parties to this situation. Hypocrites and shorts-soilers nearly all. Yet I'm still not clear on your argument to:

A. Why the NHL does not have an interest in censuring Sean Avery for his comments (it seems to me that similar or escalated player trash talk is bad for the league long term)

B. Why they cannot legitimately do so (it seems to me that they can -- there is *some* line across which mere speech is 'detrimental to the league' -- though this would eventually rest on arbitration)
Or even
C. Whether A or B is the key to your objections

Well, I seem to remember arguing in the column I wrote that it is in the interest of any sports league to have a wide range of personalities competing to be the best, as opposed to pressuring players to be less colourful and less candid. I would add that one of the NHL's biggest unstated problems is that the personalities in it now tend to be incredibly homogenized and bland; it starts off with two strikes against it because the bulk of the labour force consists of dumb Canadian kids mentally pre-armed with sports clichés, and because the players are harder to differentiate on television than they used to be because of helmets and football-style padding.

I think it is incredibly unrealistic to think that the existence of a tenacious self-appointed "bad guy" who does and says calculated things to try and win hockey games is somehow a threat to the integrity of the NHL. I think it's pretty clear that the league is reacting to an illiberal, knee-jerk, wholly unexamined political expectation of the sort that has given America great ideas like piss-testing for drugs in the workplace. (Is no institution whatsoever to be exempt from the requirement to send positive "messages"?) And I think whatever reaction each of us personally decides upon toward Avery's comment, "People should be free to say what they want" should be a default starting point for discussion instead of some incredibly outrageous fringe thought defended by a few scattered and obscure columnists.

Or how about maybe just "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"? How's that for a copybook heading?

I still think there's room in there for 'action' isn't illiberal and knee-jerk, although obviously events haven't helped my argument much. We basically have the same opinion of the discipline that was assessed post-hearing.

But if the NHL doesn't want players talking about each other's girlfriends to the media because they think the 'colour' is outweighed long-term by other considerations -- a position I think is completely reasonable -- then they should be able to do something about it.

Full points to dcardno, I'd say.

I think that Avery's fundamental offense, from an aesthetic point of view, was that he was somehow "un-Canadian," for some value of Canadianism that is probably best articulated by a mixture of Don Cherry's wisdom and Molson Canadian ads ("you clap for the dancer, even if she shouldn't be a dancer.")

But yeah, I think that morals clauses should hardly be a surprise to people in the entertainment industry.

Finally, I'd like to ask Colby what the real chilling effect of this will be. What hockey player with Avery's skill is likely to either be barred from making the NHL or decide to pursue another career? The NHL pays extremely well for those few players elite enough to make it, and it attracts a very broad "applicant pool."

If the NHL doesn't want to be in the minds of a mass of parents for precipitating the question "daddy, what are sloppy seconds?" well, can you really blame them?

Hooligan's game played by gentlemen, and all that,

Does hockey have to be filtered for the eyes of 4-year-olds now? (I'm assuming that every kid in the internet age hashes this stuff out on the playground by the time they reach first or second grade)

Finally, I'd like to ask Colby what the real chilling effect of this will be.

The logic doesn't go "Good players decide to do something else with their lives and then the league gets boring". It goes, "The league gets boring and good players decide to do something else with their lives".

Righto: if the Duke lacrosse accusations had been true and the players sent to jail, it still would've been great for the sport.

I don't know how a wry pre-game comment, which drew as many barely supressed grins as frowns, compares in your mind to allegations of a gang-rape (or to Dion's failed video effort).

What I do know is that this news item penetrated into a lot of homes that don't usually know or care what's going on in the hockey world, and that the reactions have tended to be more amused than outraged.

What other wildly inappropriate examples can you come up with?

I'm no fan of criminal restrictions on free speech, nor on the stifling of legitimate public debate by allegations of human rights violations...

But, this is not the sanction of the state here. This is one party to a commercial arrangement saying to the counter party: "You have been an ass, and you have exposed me to unfavourable media contrary to the terms of our agreement (i.e., its morals clause). I therefore, within the bounds of this agreement sanction you."

What if Avery had called a press conference to insult the pre-teen daughter of his team mate? To disclose the confidential financial information of his team or the league? To advocate for NAMBLA?

Are there no bounds to the speech the league must tolerate without sanction?

K

What other wildly inappropriate examples can you come up with?
When the claim is "anything that brings your brand to the public spotlight is a good thing. (my emphasis) I'm not sure what makes any example "wildly inappropriate." As I said, at some point Brett Hull (say) was attracting fans by being 'candid' - but let's admit that not all publicity is good publicity. I'm not sure how "wry" this deliberate statement was; I'd go more with leering, puerile, self-absorbed, or mocking.

"The league gets boring and good players decide to do something else with their lives"
Seriously? You really think that there are players who would be less interested in an average income of $2M and the prospect of competition at the highest level, just because they don't get to see their girlfriends (or team-mates girlfriends, etc) slagged by the likes of Avery? Who knew?

What if Avery had called a press conference to insult the pre-teen daughter of his team mate? To disclose the confidential financial information of his team or the league? To advocate for NAMBLA?

Wow, so I guess you're pretty upset about this "sloppy seconds" business then? Sure, I guess there are ultimate boundaries, it's just ridiculous to suggest that locker-room talk in a locker room puts us anywhere near them. We don't want those boundaries to be narrow, we want them to be wide.

Even in the kind of extreme situation you're talking about ("Hi, I'm Sean Avery, and I play every game for the greater glory of Adolf Hitler"), I would argue that a morals clause should, by policy, be hard enough to enforce (as they actually are) that buying Avery out is a relatively attractive option. There are obvious dangers, which courts have come to recognize, in making their enforcement too easy.

(But of course no one on Planet Earth thinks what Avery said reflects on the prestige or harms the competitiveness of the Stars in any way that the Stars couldn't foresee, so the club, even if we accept the broad and general validity of morals clauses, doesn't have a leg to stand on. Part of the argument here is whether they should be allowed to escape the consequences of signing Avery.)

I think that "locker room talk in a locker room" is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand. The "locker room" suggests, in the normal allusive usage, a private (and particularly, gender-segregated) place where you can speak crudely because you're among friends and where your words will never be reported.

An NHL locker room with reporters in it, by contrast, is basically a press conference with a weird dress code.

I'm baffled by a six-game league suspension, though. That's some pretty massive overkill.

Also, I think the league is probably intense and interesting enough without Avery slagging his ex-girlfriends (and Phaneuf) in public. The chilling effect and reduction in league quality is somewhere between unmeasureable and fanciful.

I suggest you try to react without emotion, would your comments be different if it were about an Edmonton player? Because you obviously hate Phaneuf. Regardless of who the girl was I still think Avery should have been punished. Like Mirtle said, what if GM daughters are next?

As I said, at some point Brett Hull (say) was attracting fans by being 'candid' - but let's admit that not all publicity is good publicity.

I'll go that far - not all publicity is good publicity. This publicity, however, was not all bad publicity.

BTW wry - distainfully humerous; scornful, mocking.

To Danny:

The whole point, as viscerally illustrated by the "how did I taste" comment, is that Avery was not insulting Phaneuf's girlfriend. Elisha Cuthbert is really secondary in importance, is she not? Avery asked why OTHER PLAYERS were so fascinated with his sloppy seconds. The inference is that Avery is actually calling Phaneuf a homosexual because Phaneuf, allegedly, enjoys being where Avery has been. Follow it to its logical conclusion.

I don't have to go into the whole fake marriage and gay actor bit, but why does everyone keep assuming the insult was a general attack on women? It wasn't.

I would suggest, as well, that when the insult is seen for what it is, Colby's comments are all the more salient.

Like Mirtle said, what if GM daughters are next?

Oh my God, totally. What if Avery insults the ten billionth baby born on this planet... ON ITS FIRST BIRTHDAY? RIGHT TO ITS FACE?

James Mirtle and those who agree with him should do a better job of distinguishing the moral status of adults and children, lest he be accused of conflating them to make a point. Any talk of "daughters" is taking us further from the real point. What, GMs don't have sons?

Your intitled to your opinion Colby, as am I. I still wonder if your comments would be the same if it wasnt Phaneuf, because in the article you wrote, you obviously have an issue with him, what if it were directed towards an Edmonton player, would you still be defending him in the same way?

Well, it's a fair question, which is why I though it important to point out that this isn't a pro-Phaneuf household. On the other hand, the idea that we should worry about Avery's impromptu press conferences a hundred times more than we worry about Phaneuf ending someone's career with an elbow does seem objectively fucked up to me. But, to be fair, the conventional wisdom is that Avery's punishment was pretty screwy.

I agree that the 6 game suspension was excessive, but I do think some form of punishment was needed. In my opinion, the Dallas Stars should have been left to deal with him, because not only were his comments an embarrasment to him, but to the whole organization. I will also admit that my household is not in anyway pro-Avery, I have never liked him and I don't think he is the right ticket to the media for the NHL, that being said, I stand by my opinion in that he deserved some form of punishment, but Bettman should have let the Stars handle it.

I'm surprised that nobody seems to have noticed that you called this guy 'Steve' in your entry.

There's a lot of slippery-slope subtext to this story, in particular sliding right past two women being publicly referred to as 'sloppy seconds' into the far more nebulous territory of accusations of homosexuality. Yeah, it's the terminology that gets me (every woman over the age of 20 has been called 'sloppy seconds' by some asshole; find one who wasn't offended by it) - he might as well have called them pieces of gash and gotten on with it.

What the NHL does or fails to do in order to protect its reputation doesn't concern me, but a censorship argument doesn't hold water. He made his employer look bad, for good or ill. He furthered an understanding of athletes as neanderthals. If I were the NHL and faced with this decision, I wouldn't suspend him, though; I'd get two strong guys to hold him still while Rachel and Elisha took turns kicking him in the balls in stiletto boots.

Speaking, you know, as a female hockey fan.

Good thing our beloved Edmonton Oilers never won any Stanley Cups with rosters consisting largely of cocaine abusers, drunk drivers, malicious goons, and deadbeat dads. Otherwise, we couldn't reasonably celebrate their greatness as hockey players, right?

You deliberately draw a parallel between gender slurs and, what, drug abuse? This is a different sort of problem. If the conversation were about 'darkies' instead of 'sloppy seconds', you wouldn't have any room to move. Take the GM example: if one of their higher-profile employees had made the same comment publicly, would 'but he's a great car salesman' really hold water as a rebuttal?

If I were the NHL and faced with this decision, I wouldn't suspend him, though; I'd get two strong guys to hold him still while Rachel and Elisha took turns kicking him in the balls in stiletto boots.

Speaking, you know, as a female hockey fan.

Sounds like the NHL would have had another viewer if Avery was in the line-up for the Calgary game.